| 1 |
At Mon, 19 Jan 2009 17:39:13 +0000 Stroller <stroller@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On 19 Jan 2009, at 16:59, Grant Edwards wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> ... |
| 5 |
>>> Someone should file a bug to have the message changed to something |
| 6 |
>>> clearer. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> I'd be happy to do that. Is the following correct? |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> The UI and rendering libraries that were part of the |
| 11 |
>> mozilla-firefox 2.x package have been split from the mozilla |
| 12 |
>> firefox-3.x package and are now in the xulrunner package. In |
| 13 |
>> order for ebuilds to use xulrunner instead of mozilla-firefox |
| 14 |
>> 2.x, the "firefox" USE flag must be replaced by the |
| 15 |
>> "xulrunner" USE flag. Failure to replace the "firefox" USE |
| 16 |
>> flag with the "xulrunner" USE flag will result in portage |
| 17 |
>> requiring mozilla-firefox 2.x which is incompatible with |
| 18 |
>> mozilla-firefox 3.x -- this will block some packages from |
| 19 |
>> building. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> It's kinda wordy. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> How about: |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> With Firefox 3 the "firefox" USE flag has become "xulrunner". |
| 26 |
> Failure |
| 27 |
> to change your USE flags will result in portage requiring mozilla- |
| 28 |
> firefox |
| 29 |
> 2.x which is incompatible with mozilla-firefox 3.x and will block |
| 30 |
> some packages from building. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
I would favor the original (with Alan McKinnon's change). It is |
| 33 |
somewhat wordy but this issue has caused several users grief and the |
| 34 |
(admittedly repetitive) original wording makes it very clear what must |
| 35 |
be done and gives some idea of what caused the change. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
allan |
Archives